Widely Sharing, from Divine Abundance

US Democrats and Republicans: The Difference is – SIN –

US citizens are eminently blessed with two powerful political parties that understand good governance very well. Both place premium importance on the welfare of American citizens. It does not matter whether it is the Democratic Party or the Republican Party that is in power, the welfare of Americans are largely adequately taken care of. In the case of the way the American economy is handled by any of the parties there is no significant difference. On security, the efforts of both parties are virtually matched – no significant difference. In several other issues there are no demonstrable differences in their policy thrust. It is clear that the areas that divide the parties, where some signature policies exist, showing a clear difference between the Democrats and the Republicans outside their assigned blue and red colours, hinge on Morality Issues.

Morality Issues:
A number of moral issues feature prominently and regularly at discussions of party policies in various media forums, in campaign rallies and in presidential debates in America. The most prominently featured include abortion, homosexual relations (between gays and between lesbians), medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryo, adultery, sex between unmarried man and woman, doctor-assisted suicide, divorce, and having baby outside marriage. The parties are essentially polarized towards acceptance and rejection of these moral issues. What is observed in the activities of these parties and their members correlate well with results of an interesting Gallup poll that contains these issues under discussion and some other moral issues. In other words, the values guiding the party policies on these matters are thus diametrically distinctive. As it always plays out, the Democratic Party regards all these things as morally acceptable in line with the Democratic Party value base and they are strongly promoted by the party. The contrary situation is true of the Republican Party. The play-out looks simplistic but a serious look shows it is not easy to understand.

It is not easy to understand why such a sharp divergence could be seen in such moral issues of such distinctive nature and with such predictable effect on individuals and on the brickworks of the society, among reasoning humans in a supposedly highly enlightened (American) populace. The nature of these issues is such that none of them has a middle ground in its consideration In line with natural law, even before religious and cultural considerations, abortion, homosexual relations (between gays and between lesbians), medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryo, adultery, sex between unmarried man and woman, doctor-assisted suicide, divorce, and having baby outside marriage, are intrinsically unacceptable, given what each really entails. This is where the problem seems to emanate from: “what each really entails”.

“What each really entails” is where argument is anchored to eventually create a divergence. Abortion is naturally the decimation of an unborn child but someone chooses to call it the elimination of a pest that is unwanted by the host, for the health or social benefits of the host. Homosexuality is against the natural use of sex which is seen in the differences in the sexual organs and the sexual characteristics of males and females, which are designed to attract and complement, leading to a naturally desired and naturally expected results; someone chooses to say that people who introduce aberrations in this natural order should be granted the right to do unnatural things, and allow these aberrations to be carried to the realm of granting it a place in institutions that are formed with a design to service natural products from natural order. Can something unnatural fit into that natural institution? Can homosexual relations find a place in the institution of Marriage which is a natural institution servicing natural products for natural ends and natural results? What natural product can homosexuality ever be? This recourse to natural law or natural order can be used to discuss the existing dispositions towards these moral issues. It may be necessary to take one more issue for an important example.

An important example can be seen in “medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryo”. This is easily the destruction of a human embryo to obtain stem cells for experimentation, in medical research. The alternative argument is that advancement of special medical research for special health needs is of the essence here. The pro-life protagonists, however, insist that every goal in the use of human embryos for medical research can be achieved using adult stem cells which are easily obtainable in some organs of the human adult the process of which does not lead to death of the human being. So far, there has not been any advantage over the use of adult stem cells demonstrated by the medical scientists using human embryos. On the other hand, adult stem cells offer much more potentials than the embryonic stem cells which have not been used for any successful treatment while adult stem cells have been used for many. The pro-choice protagonists do not want to regard the human embryo as yet human. This is a damning biological fallacy. The human embryo is fully human from the very moment of conception. Life begins at fertilization(the moment of conception) and the embryo rightly deserves personhood status – is already a person. The arguments would not have been necessary if people were appropriately classified according to their peculiar subscription in this matter. There is a bad consequence of classifying as either pro-life or pro-choice.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice:
It is right to give the tag of “Pro-Life” to the people that are opposed to these listed issues but it cannot be said the term pro-choice fits the other group. They seem to be hiding under the less-unpalatable “pro-choice” label to act out their real persona which is “anti-life”, their values being really antithetic to pro-life agenda. In the United States of America the “Pro-Life” label belongs to the Republican Party while the Democratic Party is “Pro-Choice”. Each party is passionate about its own position as can be seen in the positions of Republican Donald Trump and Democratic Hilary Clinton in the final 2016 PresidentialDebate; but we have to understand what they represent in real terms.

In real terms these moral issues under discussion should receive a proper label, in the light of contemporary popular culture ascribable to modern America, so as to put proper labels on the two sides of the divide. That popular culture is Modern Religion such as Christianity. What label would Modern Religion give to these moral situations? Calling it what it really is, it is “Sin”. Taking of innocent lives is involved in abortion and medical research using human embryonic stem cells and scripture records killing as sin (Exodus 20: 12). Also recorded as sin in the scriptures are the other moral issues listed: homosexual relations (Romans 1: 24-27), adultery (Exodus 20: 13), sex between unmarried man and woman (1Corinthians 6: 15-20), doctor-assisted suicide which is murder (Exodus 20: 12) as well as suicide, (1Corinthians 6: 19-20), and divorce (Matthew 19: 3-9). “Sin” is, therefore, the proper label given to these issues by modern religious tenets which are the fabrics of the popular culture ascribable to the United States of America.

United States of America is officially One Nation Under God. The US Pledge of Allegiance says so. This implies that Americans reverence God and obey God’s precepts while trusting in His benevolence. What God would want to be with respect to these issues would, therefore, be to what Americans should subscribe. A little extrapolation of the argument lands, therefore, on the fact that what separates the Democrats and the Republicans is their attitude towards sin. The Democrats accept sin and the Republicans reject sin. It is as simple as that. It does not matter what rhetoric is applied and what design is used to garnish the facts while analyzing these issues, nothing changes what they really are – sin. The real Americans are therefore those that have policies that portray mindsets of those that live in a nation under God.